Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Woodbury County supervisors delay FY2026 capital plan after detailed review of projects including Dorothy Pico and maintenance shop

3679445 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors on a unanimous vote tabled approval of the fiscal year 2026 Capital Improvement Plan to allow staff to reconcile prior-year CIP accounting and provide updated cost and funding details for several projects.

The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors on a unanimous vote tabled approval of the fiscal year 2026 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to allow staff to finalize cost estimates and confirm available funding.

The board decided to wait after administrators and department heads described several unresolved items that could change the county's borrowing needs and the recommended FY2026 allocations. Supervisor Bittinger moved to table the CIP; Supervisor Nelson seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.

Why it matters: The CIP sets the county's planned capital borrowing and affects projects such as building repairs, vehicle replacements and technology purchases. Board members said they wanted updated accounting of prior-year CIP balances and clearer scopes and quotes before authorizing new debt.

Discussion highlights

• Dorothy Pico building: Kenny (staff member) summarized multi-year structural studies that began in 2022. Architects and structural engineers monitored building movement and advised mitigation options. The county used concrete “polyfill” and floor jacking earlier in the process and has spent roughly $90,000 on those efforts, Kenny said. A CIP line item for Dorothy Pico was listed at $372,000; Kenny recommended lowering that request to $250,000 pending continued monitoring and further information.

• County maintenance shop at Mobile: Board members and staff described the current maintenance shop as undersized, poorly insulated and located partially in floodplain. Staff said equipment is often stored outside, exposing expensive machinery to theft, vandalism and weather. Building a new consolidated shop on a larger site would be a multiyear, multimillion-dollar undertaking; staff asked the board to consider initiating land acquisition if a preferred parcel goes to public sale this fall.

• Sheriff and public-safety technology: Staff described recurring annual licensing needs. The Cellebrite-style forensic license cited by deputies runs about $21,000 per year; staff suggested the license might be funded through gaming funds this year and moved to the sheriff’s operating budget in subsequent years. Board members asked staff to confirm the license’s useful life and whether it meets CIP loan criteria.

• Rescue truck and vehicle replacements: Staff reported one vehicle slated for replacement shows heavy use (mileage figures reported in the meeting) and that switching from a diesel to a gasoline engine could reduce the purchase price by about $12,000 and lower long-term service costs. Staff estimated the diesel quote could fall into the high-$80,000s if changed to gas, pending formal quotes.

• Facilities and smaller items: The board discussed $200,000 for carpet, paint and blinds in auditor/recorder offices, and staff reported a supplier with near-new cubicles at roughly 20% of new cost. County staff also discussed concrete work and drainage at the east-side EMS/storage area and deteriorated ADA-access sidewalk areas at the former school site used for county functions.

Next steps and outcome

Staff (Ryan Eckerson and others) will reconcile prior-year CIP balances, obtain updated quotes, and provide the board with revised numbers after meetings with department leads. The board tabled the FY2026 CIP for action next week so members could review updated documentation; the motion to table passed 5-0.

Discussion vs. decision

The board’s vote was procedural (to table) and did not authorize any new borrowing or project starts. Multiple items discussed remain proposals or pending staff follow-up; the board gave direction to staff to return with clarified costs and funding options.